PreTrial Motions Continue as Double Homicide Trial is Delayed

By Rachel Benck [former] - February 23, 2023
Court | Daily Stories | Homicides | Shooting | Suspects | Victims |

All parties are set to prepare for a month-long wave of pretrial motions for a double homicide case as it inches closer to its newly scheduled trial date.

Alphonso Walker, 45, is being charged with two counts of first-degree murder in connection to the deaths of Dalonte Wilson, 23, and Antone Brown, 44, near the 400 block of 61st Street, NE on April 25, 2018.

The trial was slated to begin on Feb. 23, however, a new witness was disclosed 48 hours prior causing the trial to be rescheduled for April 20.

Instead, D.C. Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt heard the defense on their motion to suppress tangible evidence and digital data.

Defense attorneys Prescott Loveland and Kevann Gardner argued the a search warrant issued for Walker’s two cell phones was insufficient and did not meet the standards for 4th amendment privacy compliance.

According to D.C. case law, the warrant must specify what evidence the prosecution is seeking to obtain from the phones, why the prosecution believes the device contains said evidence, and establish the period of time of extraction.

In addition, to establish probable cause to conduct the search, Walker’s arrest warrant must also be incorporated and attached to the search warrant itself. 

Gardner argued the prosecution failed to meet all of these standards, calling it a “bare bones” warrant.

The prosecution argued the arrest warrant was referenced in the search warrant, that it established probable cause, and asked the judge to use “common sense inference” to see the warrant as sufficient.

Gardner and Loveland countered by pointing out the arrest warrant was only referenced once, the reference did not use proper incorporation language, and that it still wasn’t attached to the search warrant.

Judge Brandt did not rule on the motion, and requested both sides turn in their arguments in writing by the deadline for motions on March 2, responses are due on March 27.

All parties are scheduled to reconvene on March 31 to “put an end to all these motions” according to Judge Brandt.